Civil RICO: Points to Remember

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Federal Witness

and Qualified Criminal Investigator

1. The Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 expressly authorizes civil remedies, in
addition to any criminal remedies that also exist to prosecute organized crime.

2. State courts have original jurisdiction to enforce the Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C.
1964. See Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg, Rice v. Janovich and Village at
Camelback v. Carr.

3. The Civil Case Cover Sheet for the Superior Court of California shows “RICO” as a
standard case category.

4. A pattern of racketeering is expressly defined to mean only two (2) RICO “predicate
acts” during any given 10-year period. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).

5. The federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1961 itemizes all RICO predicate acts. The most
common are mail fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal
investigation, and witness tampering or retaliation.
6. Violations of State and federal laws both qualify as RICO predicate acts. 18 U.S.C.
1961(1)(B) itemizes a long list of federal offenses that qualify as predicate acts.

7. Any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,
obscene matter, controlled substances or extortion is also a RICO predicate act, if it is
chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
See 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A).

8. The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution elevates all RICO statutes to the status
of supreme Law, and resolves any conflicts with State laws in favor of the RICO
statutes. Whenever conflicts occur, State laws and State constitutional provisions have
no standing (“notwithstanding”).

9. Congress intended the RICO statutes to be liberally construed. See 84 Stat. 947, Sec.
904, Oct. 15, 1970. However, this liberal construction rule was never codified
anywhere in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, even though Title 18 has been enacted into
positive law by Act of Congress.

10. A specific Congressional objective is encouraging civil litigation to supplement

government efforts to deter and penalize the practices prohibited by the RICO statutes.

11. Another objective of Civil RICO is to turn victims into prosecutors, “private attorneys
general”, dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. See Rotella v. Wood.

12. Civil RICO specifically has a further purpose of encouraging potential private plaintiffs
to investigate diligently. Rotella v. Wood.

13. Organized crime is a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources
are deemed inadequate. See Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates.
14. Civil RICO authorizes triple damages (3x) to be awarded to successful private
plaintiffs. See 18 U.S.C. 1964(c).

15. The provision for triple damages is justified by the expected benefit of suppressing
racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. Rotella v. Wood.

16. The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is
also entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has
advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant
class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta.

17. A private attorney general may appear in court without the license to practice law that is
required of all State Bar members. See sections 6067 and 6068 of the California
Business and Professions Code.

18. A private attorney general may appear in court “ex rel.” on behalf of the “United States”
(i.e. the federal government), the State of California, the People of California or the
People of the United States of America. Confer at “Ex relatione” in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

19. Civil RICO statutes are supplemented by 2 Human Rights Treaties –- the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights –- both of which are rendered supreme Law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause
(just like the Bill of Rights).

20. The latter Covenant’s Reservations enacted by Congress expressly reserve original
jurisdiction to State and local governments, to the end that their competent authorities
may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.